Debate: Taiwan is Indefensible
In the newest episode of Intelligence Squared Debates, four scholars discuss whether the United States can successfully defend Taiwan from a Chinese invasion.
RESOLUTION:
Taiwan is Indefensible.
Those who are arguing “YES” are Lyle J. Goldstein, a research professor of China Maritime Studies Institute at US Naval College.
His partner is Charlie Glaser, a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University.
Those who are arguing “NO” are Elizabeth Larus, author, and professor of political science and international affairs at the University of Mary Washington.
Her partner is Elbridge Colby, author, former US deputy assistant secretary of defense.
Goldstein started by saying that his opinions do not reflect that of the US government. However, he has studied Chinese military modernization for the past two decades. The Taiwanese issue could prevent China and the US from working on worldwide issues such as the pandemic and global warming. However, there is also a greater risk.
“There is a real risk of catastrophic war, even nuclear war,” he said.
Larus argues the opposite of Goldstein. She believes that defending Taiwan is important because of the US's credibility. If America breaks ties with Taiwan, it is very possible that countries in the region will doubt America’s commitment to Asia.
“They might just bandwagon with China, or they will decide to build up their own forces,” she said.
Taiwan’s position is also strategic because whoever controls Taiwan controls the Asian seaboard.
Glaser opens up his argument by talking about the risks of defending Taiwan. He believes the risks are too large because a large, conventional war would be costly for both the US and Taiwan. Furthermore, China will not back down because they have an invested interest in Taiwan.
“In comparison, US interests are much smaller. Taiwan is not a vital US interest and is not a key security partner,” he said.
An escalation of military might would be happening for both sides. China would escalate to get the US to back down. The US would escalate because they fear that losing a war would affect their alliances.
Finally, Colby argues that even though defending Taiwan would be hard and costly, it would be possible. China wants full subordination and annexation of Taiwan.
In order to succeed, all Taiwan and the US need to do is prevent it. It does not mean that the US needs to defeat China in a war. China’s bar of success is much higher than America’s bar.
Despite China’s military might, it is also very difficult to launch and sustain an amphibious invasion over an island.
“If that armada is weakened enough… the invasion fails, even if the invader remains really strong,” he said.
Before the debate, 43% were against the motion, 30% were for the motion, and 27% were undecided. After the debate, 58% were against the motion, 35% were for the motion, and 7% were undecided.
The results were clear: Larus and Colby won the debate.
